There was a ripple of excitement and,
certainly in my hearing, a reaction
that was mostly professional
resentment (jealousy?) at the profile achieved when the Telegraph ran a
story a couple of years ago about a proposal by the Lynx UK Trust (LUKT)
to reintroduce two breeding pairs of lynx to an area of remote, heavily
forested land on the west coast of Scotland (1). The lynx would wear
collars containing a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracker that would
enable their movements to be followed. The collars would also contain a
sedative that could be injected into the animal’s neck if it strayed
outside of an area of virtual fencing
defined by GPS, and where they may have posed a threat to livestock. The
Trust said that it was in the process of developing an application to
Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) for the trial release of these former
native species. SNH was quoted in the article as saying "Anyone proposing
to reintroduce a species that used to be native to Scotland, is entitled
to apply for a licence to do so. Such an application would be considered
on the basis of international guidelines on species reintroductions"

Over the months, I kept an eye on the LUKT
website and Facebook page (2,3) to see what progress was being made with
the application. Little information was given, other than the Trust saying
that it had been in conversation with SNH about making an application for
release, and an inference that the application process was proving more
complex than expected. It emerges that Dr Paul O’Donoghue, Chief
Scientific Advisor of the Trust, gave a presentation of the proposal to
the National Species Reintroduction Forum (NSRF) in Scotland, six months
after the article appeared in the Telegraph. This is the same Forum, you
may remember, that agreed to the capture of the beaver living wild and
free in Tayside even though it was contested whether they had the power to
make the decision (4). The beaver were subsequently given a reprieve when
acknowledgement of the scale of their successful colonisation made capture
implausible (5).

Briefing the National Species Reintroduction Forum

O’Donaghue set out a three year local
feasibility study to the Forum on the trial release of lynx, with a
program of post-release monitoring that included impact on livestock,
compensation being paid for losses (6). He said that discussions had been
held with landowners, and the importance of engagement with local
communities and stakeholders was seen as essential. The minutes of the
Forum meeting reveal that there was discussion of the proposal after
O’Donaghue had left, raising concerns about the lack of clarity over the
selection of a trial site, resourcing, how local people would be engaged,
and that the project would need to take into account the issues and
approaches set out in the Scottish Code for Conservation Translocations
that was being drafted in consultation with Forum members, these concerns
eventually relayed to O’Donaghue. At a subsequent meeting of the Forum, a
member noted that there had been increasing interest in lynx
reintroduction, and felt that the Forum needed to increase its knowledge
on lynx issues (7). The Forum recognised that this was especially the case
in relation to socio-economic factors, and that it could use lynx as a
test for itself of the upcoming Scottish Code for Conservation
Translocations and associated Guidelines (6).

Meanwhile, in early 2013, the Cairngorms
National Park Authority released a long-trailed internal report about the
potential for restoration of vertebrate species in the Park, and which
contained a recommendation that there should be further exploration of the
ability of the Park to contribute to a national lynx reintroduction
project (8). The Scottish Wildlife Trust reconfirmed their policy view
from 2008, that reintroduction of lynx be a priority (9) when their chief
executive called in late 2014 for its reinstatement (10) while the John
Muir Trust also fingered the lynx for reinstatement in its policy on
“rewilding” earlier this year, believing that a trial re-introduction
project to Scotland should be implemented within the next five years (11).
Of course, none of these organisations are actively pursuing that course,
or engaging with the processes documented in the Scottish Code for
Conservation Translocations and accompanying Guidelines that were finally
launched in July 2014, and which were said by SNH to have a “special
focus on both Scottish socio-economic and biological issues” (12).
While Forum minutes record that these documents had abandoned the
structure of the international guidance, they read just like a duplication
of the IUCN’s Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation
Translocations that I briefly reviewed in relation to the application
process for reinstatement of the wolf to Britain (13,14). There is also an
assertion from SNH that the “significant involvement and approval of 26
different members of the NSRF”meant that
the Code and Guidelines represent “an approach that has been agreed
across a wide range of conservation and land use organisations” (12).
How wide a range that is, is immaterial when it is not representative of
the Scottish people and doesn’t seek to capture or represent the public
will (4). Nevertheless, both a blank and a worked example of the
Translocation Project Form are provided in an Appendix and, when coupled
with the Code and Guidelines, it does at least give people in Scotland a
clear steer in what they have to do to make a credible application (15).

More potential release sites identified

Another article about the LUKT proposal
appeared a few weeks ago in the Telegraph, but this time, as well as a
location in Scotland, a couple of proposed release sites in England were
given: Ennerdale in the Lake District and Thetford Forest in Norfolk (16).
It was reported that the Trust had launched a public consultation to
determine public reaction, after which it would make applications to SNH
and Natural England (NE). Thus
on the back of a rash of publicity from
this Telegraph article, and others in the Times, BBC News and Independent,
the Trust launched an online public survey through SurveyMonkey, as the
first stage of a public consultation process that the Trust said would
also include talks and meetings with interested members of the local
community and other stakeholders, based around the proposed reintroduction
sites (2). The survey closed on the 22 March having had
over 9,000 responses
(more on that poll later).

I have written over the years about
Ennerdale, and how it is the least critiqued nonsense of a supposed
ecological restoration, when in fact it is a livestock driven landscape
(17, 18). In relation to an ecological function of lynx, I have pointed
out previously that 20 of the 80 or so roe deer in the Ennerdale valley
are shot each year by a Wildlife Ranger employed by the Forestry
Commission, ostensibly so that their browsing does not prevent woodland
regeneration (17). If that was the concern, why was cattle grazing
introduced throughout the valley under Higher Level Stewardship schemes,
but at the expense of us sacrificing a native animal that could have been
prey for the lynx? The choice of Ennerdale by the LUKT seemed speculative,
and so a fellow member of the advisory group for Ennerdale contacted the
Area Forester, and got the response that the “Wild” Ennerdale Partners had
not been contacted by the Trust, nor were they considering lynx
reintroduction. Considering the determination there to turn the valley
into a beef farm (18) this is another betrayal in the opportunities that
the Ennerdale valley could have provided in the return of natural
processes, such as a trophic cascade between lynx, deer, and regenerating
woodland (19).

The proposal of Thetford Forest was equally
speculative, even though it was reported in the Eastern Daily Post that
O’Donoghue, considered it a favourable area because of a “high deer
population and a relatively low human population” and that he had got
“landowners who are interested and we are very excited about the
scheme” (20). To accompany its article, the Post carried out a poll of
its readership that revealed that 80% of 752 voters were keen to see lynx
reinstated in unfenced land under the Trust proposals. The Daily Mirror
also carried out a poll of its readers in an article about the Trust’s
proposals for release sites in Norfolk, Cumbria and Aberdeenshire, and
received a vote of 89% who were “happy with lynx being reintroduced”
(21). While I cannot date it, there is a poll in the BBC iWonder
interactive guide on the return of big cats that shows 69% of respondents
favouring the reintroduction of lynx to the UK (22).

The socio-economic impact of lynx reinstatement

The proposed Scottish location caught the
attention of Scottish Land and Estates (SLE) a landowner membership
organisation. Douglas McAdam, its Chief Executive, noted that the NRSF had
been set up in Scotland after being requested by SLE and others in the
land management sector, “to ensure that future reintroduction
proposals, especially of large predatory carnivore species, had their
potential impacts on economic land use, other species and our communities,
properly assessed as part of a robust and inclusive decision making
process” (23). I just wonder how much influence McAdam thinks an SLE
presence in the Forum, and the Forums role in decision making (24) can
accommodate the SLE view of being “deeply sceptical that the majority
of our membership would welcome it”. It was not long before other land
interests sought to exert their influence, Phil Stocker of the National
Sheep Association writing to the chief executive of NE and Defra minister
Lord De Mauley about the threat to livelihoods and business from the
release of lynx (25). The Association apparently received a “speedy
response” from NE, which gave an assurance that it would
“consult all relevant parties and consider the socio-economic
impacts of the reintroduction, as well as impacts on the environment and
the animals themselves”.

The threat of sheep predation was also
raised when the LUKT announced two more locations as proposed release
sites: the Kielder Forest in Northumberland, and the forested areas just
over the border in Dumfries and Galloway (26). John Riddle has 1,000 sheep
on his farm to the east of Kielder Forest, and is a county councillor for
the area, as well as being chair of the Northumberland National Park
Authority. He thinks it is “a ridiculous idea ….an unnecessary evil
that we do not need to entertain”. Perhaps Stocker and Riddle would
have had more perspective on the threat from lynx predation if they had
seen the April Fool’s joke in the German regional newspaper Nordwest
Zeitung (27). It was a report about the success of a new denture with
sharpened teeth had had for sheep in warding off wolves in the North of
England “where there are particularly wicked wolves”. The joke was
given away when Shaun Lamb from the British Royal Sheep Breeders'
Association was quoted as saying "We had some problems at first, but
then the sheep showed bite"

It was this issue of the attitudes of those
“who have the power to kill”, the “farmers, gamekeepers and
hunters (all of whom are allowed to own guns)” that Niki Rust looked
at in her think piece about the Trusts proposal (28). Niki, a
doctoral student in carnivore conservation, reflected on the main cause of
death among reintroduced carnivores being due to humans. She pointed out,
like I have (13) the IUCN guideline that says the main causes of the
historical decline must be addressed to ensure success of reintroductions,
and then cited the example of the failure of a lynx reintroduction in
France being due to hunting. Niki made a call for more involvement of
social scientists in wildlife management schemes, noting that the LUKT
only had one amongst its team, and that the official Scottish Beaver Trial
had none. In a comment in response, Australian biologist Caroline Copley
said that “what is needed most is governmental policy that defines the
allowed behaviour of humans, given reintroductions”. I am going to
explore that problem of hunters in France, and calls there for
governmental policy on lynx because, as ever, the experience of France
with lynx is instructive for us – and the NSRF - as it is also with the
wolf (13). However, as we go, we must have an understanding of the ecology
of lynx in terms of the feasibility of its reinstatement, the arrogant
presumption of the National Species Reintroduction Forum in Scotland being
that there already was sufficient information on this (7).

The ecology of lynx

The Eurasian lynx, also called boreal lynx,
is a large cat, 50-70cm at shoulder height, and weighing 17 to 30kg (29,
30). Females are 25% lighter than males of the same age. Lynx have a short
tail, cheeks fringed with a ruff of long hair, their ears topped by
characteristic tufts, and large, hairy paws that seemingly give advantage
in traveling over snow. The lynx is mainly active at night, with two
peaks of more pronounced activity at dusk and dawn. Roe deer, and to a
lesser extent fox and wild boar, would be their main native prey in
Britain, but other small ungulates are taken where they exist as native
elsewhere, such as chamois, as well as marmot, hare and rabbit. The daily
need of an adult is estimated at 1.5 to 3kg of meat, with approximately 50
to 70 prey like deer taken a year. An attack is by ambush, hiding behind
vegetation or rocks, or at least triggered close to the prey, which will
be consumed over a number of days.

The Lynx is a solitary, territorial species,
mainly expressed by scent marking (urine deposits) that is more intense in
males than in females. Home ranges for males can vary between 200 and 450
km² and that of a female between 100 and 150 km², with males rarely
overlapping, although females may overlap with males. Each animal lives on
this vast area that it defends more or less actively, spaced according
to prey availability, and with a density that probably does not exceed
more than 2 to 3 animals per 100km².

Historically, the species is quite strongly
linked to wooded areas of very large extent, which provides lynx with
abundant prey, and with a three dimensional structure that optimizes the
efficiency of their hunting (e.g. presence of a diverse undergrowth). The
lynx may, however, demonstrate a certain plasticity in respect of habitats
used, except during periods of giving birth when the female operates a
narrower selection of covered areas, seeking rocky outcrops and crevices,
the pit of an uprooted tree, a tree stump with a large cavity etc.

Females are sexually mature before males (21
months vs. 33 months) but only 40 to 80% mate in any one year between
February and March. The gestation period is about 10 weeks, the litter
size varies from 1 to 4 kittens. Life expectancy may reach fifteen years.
In spring, at the age of 9-11 months, having spent that time on their
mother’s home range, it is time for them to find their own, and so young
lynx disperse over varying distances (10-100 km) wandering for a few
months to a few years, until it finds an area vacant of other lynx for the
home range that it will keep for life. This transitional period may be
associated with high mortality. Lynx dispersal ability is less than the
wolf. While it can negotiate natural obstacles (lakes, rivers, mountains)
and human structures (highways) it is less able to deal with multiples of
these barriers, areas where potential natural corridors have disappeared,
so that spontaneous dispersal is reduced. Lynx are shy and do not attack
humans. No fatal incidents have ever been documented.

The history of lynx in France

Lynx were widely distributed in France in
the fifteenth century, encompassing the lowlands as well as the mountains
(29). Hunting and deforestation led to its disappearance from the Paris
basin and the low mountains of the Vosges in the middle of the seventeenth
century. Intensive hunting, deforestation, and reduction of its prey, led
to its disappearance from French forests, confining it to mountainous
areas, the continuing persecution finally driving it out of the Massif
Central and the Jura mountains by the second half of the nineteenth
century. The most recent authenticated kill in the Alps was at Queyras in
the Hautes-Alpes in 1928, and so it may not have survived there past the
1930s. The last authenticated kill in the Pyrénées-Orientales dates from
1917, but there is a suggestion that the lynx hung on in the Pyrenees
until the 1950s. That the lynx survived into the twentieth century in
France, as did the wolf, should be contrasted with the earlier eradication
of both these carnivores in Britain, the youngest lynx fossil bone being
radio-dated at 1,400 years ago (31).

Lynx voluntarily returned to the Jura
Mountains of France in 1974, as revealed following the shooting of a lynx
in the Department of Ain (32). Unlike the wolf, that also voluntarily
returned to France from Italy, a country where it had never been lost, the
return of lynx in France arose from a country where they had to be
reinstated. The lynx disappeared from Switzerland in the early 1900s, but
a decision was made by the Federal Council in 1967 to begin a program of
returning the lynx to areas of conservation where hunting was banned (Jagdbanngebiet– see (33)). Beginning in 1971, lynx caught in the wild in the Slovakian
Carpathians were released in the cantons of Vaud and Obwald, reinstating
them to the Swiss Jura Mountains and western Alps (30). It was these lynx
that then began to turn up in the French Jura, and then the Alps to the
south. To extend the range of lynx further north in France, 21 (12 males
and 9 females) also largely coming from the Slovakian Carpathians, were
reinstated during 1983-1993 into the southern mountains of the Vosges
(34,35).

The population estimates of lynx in France
today are based on regular or recent presence established by members of
the Wolf Lynx Network coordinated by the national office for hunting and
wildlife (Office National de la Chasse et de la Faune Sauvage (ONCFS)
through footprints found in the snow, prey depredation, collected hair or
faeces that laboratory analysis confirms as lynx and, since 2011, camera
traps to confirm identification (36,37). The original Lynx Network was set
up in 1989 in the departments of the Jura mountains, and then spread
gradually to all departments of the Alps and Vosges (30). In 2000 a wolf
network in the Alps was merged with the Lynx Network so that both species
were monitored (30,37). Besides looking for clues for the presence and
monitoring of both species, the Network is also responsible for appraising
cases of predation on domestic livestock and making the decision that
allows receipt of compensation in cases of attack proved to be by a wolf or
lynx.

There are now around 150 lynx in the eastern
mountains, the main core being in the Jura (just over 100 lynx) after it
gradually expanded its territory through much of the Jura mountains (the
departments of Ain, Jura, Doubs) (see the distribution map in (36)). Two
smaller populations exist outside of that core. To the north, the presence
of lynx in the vast forest in the Vosges du Nord (which continues north
into SW Germany as the Pfälzerwald (Palatinate Forest)) is still sporadic
and appears to be disconnected from the more regular sightings in the
southern, lower Vosges. The population in the Alps occupies the smallest
total area and is discontinuous, the denser presence of signs observed in
the most compact and continuous forests of the Northern Alps (Bauges,
Chartreuse and Vercors) (34).

Legal protection of lynx in France

Protection of the lynx in France dates from
only two years after its return, when the Act on protection of nature in
1976 banned, where the requirements of preserving national biological
heritage were justified, the destruction, mutilation, capture or removal
of non-domestic (wild) animals, and the destruction, alteration or
degradation of their habitats, (see Art. 3 in (38)). In 1981, lynx were
named in the Decree establishing a list of protected mammals on the whole
territory of France, and which reiterated the prohibition of persecution
(39). It is interesting to note that the brown bear was also on this list
of protected species in the Decree of 1981, as it had hung on in the
Pyrenees, its presence there being reinforced by the translocations of
bears from Slovenia in the late 1990s and in 2006 to give a current
population of around 24, as identified by a separate Brown Bear Network of ONCFS (36, 40, 41).

The Decree of 1981 has been amended a number
of times, but a version of it is still in force today. Wolf was added to
the list of protected animals in 1996, along with allowing authorisation
to be given for capture or killing of lynx, wolf and bear to prevent
serious damage to livestock, provided that there was “no satisfactory
alternative and the derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance at a favourable conservation status of populations in their natural range”
(42). This exemption can only be granted by a joint order of the ministers
responsible for nature conservation and agriculture, after advice from the
National Nature Conservation Council. A technical protocol was devised to
define the criteria leading up to the removal of a lynx, and which
provided for a gradation of non-statutory measures for possible
intervention (from simple financial compensation to the implementation of
measures reducing the risk of attack, and then the conditions for removal
of the animal) (30). Ten animals were taken under this protocol since
1981, but the protocol itself was suspended in 2009.

Strict protection of lynx in France is also
a requirement of the habitats directive through its listing in Annex IV,
and its listing as well in Annex II requires that protected areas are
designated (43). France responded to this by designating 70 Special Areas
of Conservation for the lynx, where there are measures to maintain or
restore long term populations to favourable status while preventing
disturbances that may significantly affect them. These protected areas
range in size from 1.7 to 679.6km2, covering a total of 4,919km2,
all being concentrated in the three mountainous area of the Jura, Alps and
Vosges (44). You may be interested to know that the brown bear is also
listed in those Annexes, and France has designated 13 SAC for bear
covering 1,270 km2 in the Pyrenees (44).

Le
lynx a l’agonie dans les Vosges
(The lynx in agony in the Vosges)

The
failure of the lynx population in the Vosges to increase and expand its
territory, like the more successful expansion in the Jura, is indicative
of the resistance in this area to its return and in
spite of the level of protection (32, 46). Many of the animals
released into Vosges du Sud in the early 80s were found dead or
disappeared quickly, but despite this the lynx population in the Vosges
grew slowly until 2004, after which it stagnated and regressed. (47).
Illegal killing through ignorance or revenge held back that expansion –
there were 58 lynx born between 1992 and 2003 in the Vosges Massif, as
observed by the Lynx Network, and yet an estimate in 2013 gave a
population of less than five (35). This is in spite of compensation being
available for loss of sheep, providing that predation is proven, and that
the responsibility of the lynx is not ruled out (48). A study in the Jura
Mountains showed that lynx predation locally of sheep could be explained
by a predictable set of habitat features, such as absence of human
habitation, proximity to major forested areas – lynx are an ambush hunter
– and local abundance of roe deer (49). The authors concluded that in
grazing systems like the Jura, where unattended sheep are distributed
patchily and individual problem lynx may appear, removing lynx or lowering
their density without differentiating problem individuals would be
insufficient to limit conflicts. Selective removals could temporarily
reduce predation, but the most effective site management could only arise
through improved shepherding by having guard dogs in the few local sites
at risk, and providing shelter for sheep at night when attacks are on the
increase. These are practices also encouraged and supported financially in
mitigation of predation by wolf through the national plan for wolf in
France (13). There is, however, another factor in the persecution of lynx
- hunters claim that they are reducing the number of their game animals,
the roe deer and chamois (48). Since the lynx has two peaks of activity at
dusk and dawn, it is not surprising that the mode of hunters to stand
alone on a watchtower at dawn and dusk is particularly conducive to
illegal shooting (35).

FERUS, an organization that was set up to
help protect wolves, bears, and lynx in France, identified an important
issue of a lack of a national plan for lynx, unlike the wolf that does
have a national plan, and which threatened the future persistence of
the lynx in France (50). Even the brown bear had had plans supporting the
releases in the Pyrenees (40). FERUS reported that the French Committee of
IUCN had classified the lynx in 2009 as “endangered” (51). Soon after, FERUS called for the State to draft and effectively implement a real
national conservation plan for lynx in France, and in which it wished to
participate (52). FERUS developed their own draft, which it believed to be
the basis of such a plan, and sent it to amongst others the Secretary of
State for Ecology, and the Director of Water and Biodiversity. The plan
called for greater policing of illegal killing; greater connectivity
between the various mountain areas, especially preserving and restoring
forest corridors and reducing mortality from road traffic; improving
communication and awareness among local people, hunters, farmers
foresters; continue the monitoring and scientific studies on the lynx in
France, and if needed consider releases of lynx from populations outside
of the Slovakian Carpathians to enhance population genetics; and while not
necessarily a priority, promote the possible reinstatement of lynx to new
areas if there was a strong local will and a broad consensus
reintroduction of lynx in an area biologically favourable to the species
(34). Specific actions in relation to the Vosges, once the reasons for the
“stagnation” of the lynx population had been identified and “controlled”,
consider the release of more lynx in the northern Vosges, and promote
connectivity between there and the middle and southern Vosges.

Enlisting the support of the French people

Given inaction from the State, a first
petition in support of greater protection of the lynx was organised by
Centre Athénas, and supported by OneVoice, recognising that the lynx was
the only species among the large predators that did not have a
conservation plan; that illegal killing had long been denied or ignored,
contributing to stagnation of the population and local regression; that
there was a need for a policy on and effective implementation of
protective measures for flocks; and that there needed to be restoration and
maintenance of forest ecological communities across all the massifs (Vosges,
Jura, Alps) as well as consideration of conservation of lynx habitat in
public planning policies (53, 54,55). The petition was launched in
September 2012 to mobilize citizens and make their voices heard with the
Minister of Ecology and Environment. It was quickly followed by FERUS
renewing its request, along with France Nature Environnement and 12 other
organisations, for the establishment of a national lynx plan, citing
urgency given the imminent demise of lynx in the Vosges, and asserting
that the next few years would be decisive for the future of the population
(47). A two month survey of the declining lynx population of the Vosges
confirmed that urgency (35) the precariousness of the situation revealed
in the Lynx Network Bulletin of that time (56). In relation to that, a
study to determine whether the lynx still had a place in the Vosges was
commissioned while a project was being developed to reinstate lynx in the
Palatinate Forest over the border in Germany (37). The relevance was due
to the likelihood of connectivity of this new population with hopefully
the pre-existing population in the Vosges du Nord by way of the contiguous
forest that runs between them.

In considering the ecology of the lynx (see
above) the natural environments and the quantity of prey, the author
concluded that the lynx did have a place in the Vosges in the long term,
but with certain conditions: reduce lynx mortality caused by traffic
accidents, and by actively seeking and punishing perpetrators of illegal
shooting; restore ecological connections within the Vosges Mountains as
well as between there and the neighbouring Jura and Black Forest; improve
dialogue with the Hunters Federations, monitor evolution of deer numbers
in areas inhabited by lynx and take into account the presence of lynx when
calculating allocations for hunting in areas inhabited by the predator;
support sheep farmers by informing them of existing safeguards used
elsewhere, providing measures to protect flocks as well as a compensation
fund, and provide a management plan for the lynx in case of repeated
attacks by an individual on a flock; have a program of monitoring lynx,
its reproduction and mortality, territory, genetic diversity, and prey
taken; and improve cross-border coordination, especially between the Lynx
Network in the Vosges and that of the Rhineland-Palatinate.

While the first petition received the
support of 8,556 people, a second petition almost two years later
gained over 48,000 signatures (57). Launched by FERUS in October last
year, it was a response from nature conservation associations that were
unwilling to accept a lack of response and state inaction since attention
had first been drawn to the dire situation of lynx in the Vosges. This was
even after Sandrine Bélier, a Member of the European Parliament for the
East France constituency, had submitted a question for written answer from
the European Commission on protection of the lynx in the Vosges (58,59).
The answer, given by Janez Potočnik, European Commissioner for Environment
(60) disappointed FERUS because it appeared to be ignorant of the current
situation, based as it was on the assumption of previous estimates of lynx
population in the Vosges that put it at 19, whereas the most recent
reports put a much lower and worrying figure (see above) (60). In its
press release launching the petition, an open letter to Ségolène Royal,
Minister of Ecology, FERUS accused the State of “abandoning the lynx to a
sad fate” (61). The petition called on the State to implement an ambitious
restoration plan at national level, taking into account the specificities
of each mountain area, including the Vosges; increase awareness about the
lynx so that local people can take ownership of the issue and learn more
about the animal; increase efforts against illegal
killing, the most limiting
factor in the development of this species; and officially support and
encourage lynx reintroduction planned in the German Palatinate (57).
Flushed with excitement that support for the petition had surpassed 40,000
a couple of months ago, FERUS said that it “proves the interest of the
public for wildlife populations that live in France and in particular
lynx”, that they were not indifferent to the fate of wild animals, and
strongly condemned the inertia of the State (63):“We hope that Ségolène Royal finally applies this foundation of
participatory democracy so dear to her principles”

Participatory democracy and the forces of reaction

I ponder the extent of this participatory
democracy whenever I see the forces of reaction against wild nature
ganging up, as they did before the licence for the trial release of
beavers on the River Otter in Devon was approved - or re-release as it
should really be called since the beavers were already there (13). A few
weeks ago, I stumbled across evidence that
members of the National Farmers Union (NFU) had been given a privileged
opportunity for consultation on that trial re-introduction of beaver. The
NFU website on 19 December 2014 said that Natural England was consulting
on a licence application to release beavers on the River Otter in Devon,
and giving a link to a members only login area where the consultation
questions from Natural England could be read, and comments could be left
(64). The NFU released their response to the Natural England on the 16
January 2015 (65,66). In the summary of its position, the NFU made it
clear that it was opposed generally to species reintroduction programs,
and specifically opposed the reintroduction of beaver because of concerns
about physical damage to farming operations and the spread of disease.
If, despite those concerns, a licence was granted, the NFU wanted
“a robust legal framework in place to manage beavers in the landscape, in
particular where they migrate away from the area into which they were
re-introduced”

To be fair to the NFU, it did
make the point that the implications of the proposed trial demanded both a national and a local consultation, and it would have expected this to be
a public consultation hosted on a government website
with national organisations to be consulted (66). As it was, Andrew Sells, chairman of NE, is
variously reported just before the decision on the licence was announced
on 28 January 2015 that "Responses to our written consultation and public
meetings have been generally positive” (C4). Yet the written consultation
appears only to have been open to members of the NFU, and I can find
evidence of only one public meeting on the 14 January 2015 where NE
consulted with the East Devon public (68) although I have been told that
there was another community meeting, and a poorly attended meeting of
farmers where the tenor was “pretty neutral”.

In contrast to the NFU position on beaver
reintroduction, Andrew Bauer, Deputy Director of Policy for NFU Scotland,
in writing in the Press and Journal about the media coverage of the lynx
proposal over the last month, fell short of opposing it (69):"Whilst the prospect of lynx reintroduction has left some breathless with
excitement, there are good reasons why the farming community is more wary
...As a member of the National Species Reintroduction Forum, NFU Scotland
would be involved in the scrutiny of any application and would feed in the
many views and concerns likely to be voiced by our membership. Should it
be clear that the risk to farming is unacceptable, NFU Scotland would act
accordingly"

It is likely that NE did not consult more
widely about the Devon beaver as they viewed it entirely as a limited
trial – not as a national issue. Would NE have taken the same route when
the LUKT submits its applications for the trial release of lynx in England
– will SNH and the NSRF do similarly for an application in Scotland? Well,
the cat was let out of the bag when the first results of
the “pro-active” survey poll by the LUKT of 9,500 self-selected responders
were revealed, and there was overwhelming public support: 91% for a trial
reintroduction and 84% agreeing that it should begin within the next 12
months (70,71). Over half of the people who filled in the SurveyMonkey
described themselves as being from rural communities (72) returning a
level of support only 5-6% lower than urban communities (70,71). The LUKT
had also commissioned a traditional opinion poll to test whether a
self-selected group of responders would skew the results (70). A “passive”
sample group of 1,042 demographically selected people were asked the same
questions (71). Discarding the much higher numbers of “don’t knows” under
this method, the level of support was still high, with 70% agreeing to the
trial while 59% agreed that it should begin within the next 12 months. The
Trust expects to release more information from the pro-active poll over
the coming weeks, but the swell of support keeps coming in from other
polls, one in the Metro on the same day as the first results from LUKT
showing 82% agreeing that the lynx should be reintroduced in Britain (73).

I remain convinced that there is a large,
untapped and voiceless interest in Britain for wildland and the return of
former native species (74). While I have been frustrated over the last two
years with the level of communication from the LUKT through their website
(I don’t do Facebook and Twitter) and with their approach of dropping
media bombshells about potential but speculative trial sites for lynx
release, I applaud their strategy of tapping in to the public will on the
reinstatement of lynx, encouraging others to do so as well, and capturing
what is now irrefutable support for the action they will undertake. It is
no surprise that the Trust has people in common with Wildcat Haven that
just got on with ensuring the survival of wildcat in Scotland (75) the two
projects being supportive of each other, and both sharing an outlook that
takes responsibility for independent action where others are paralysed. I
am also pleased that the Trust group includes Erwin van Maanen from the
Rewilding Foundation in the Netherlands (76) with whom I spent a
fascinating evening in Salamanca at the World Wilderness Congress. Don’t
confuse this with another Dutch foundation - this is a “rewilding” project
that really does recognise carnivores as a key component in natural
processes, and in which the LUKT
also believes. With the Scottish
Government likely revealing its decision on the outcome of the Scottish beaver
trial after SNH deliver their final reports next month (7) and with the expectation of applications by LUKT to
Natural England and Scottish Natural Heritage being completed in the next
few months, then I foresee a sharp focus on the legal challenges ahead and
which I will have to navigate.

Mark Fisher 27 April 2015

(1) Wild lynx to be brought back to British
countryside, Richard Gray, Daily Telegraph 26 May 2013

(8) Assessing the potential for the
restoration of vertebrate species in the Cairngorms National Park: a
background review. Internal report by Dr David Hetherington Cairngorms
National Park Authority Ecology Advisor February 2013

(15) The Scottish Code for Conservation
Translocations and Best Practice Guidelines for Conservation
Translocations in Scotland, National Species Reintroduction Forum,
Scottish Natural Heritage July 2014